Who Won The Roy Jones Vs Bernard Hopkins Rivialry?

Probably because as time passes fans are more likely to ignore the circumstances of the fight. And begin to key in on the results of the fight.

 

Hopkins was the underdog against Trinidad because until that point he had only fought one elite fighter before. And he got embarrassed in that fight too.

Up until the Tito fight Hopkins was just the American version of Prince Naseem.

 

I don't see how beating Glen Johnson years before he beat a past prime Roy, is really that significant.

The Tarver win was great, but again, I think Tarver was drained.

Sure, Bernard can say he beat guys who beat Roy. But Roy can say he beat Tarver first and made history by going to HW and back.

Legacy and resume is a different argument altogether.

Their rivalry ended 1-1, but Roy comes out on top because Bernard's win was worthless, Roy beat him when it mattered, and Bernard refused the rematch in 2010.

 

It doesn't matter, everyone knows Roy was finished as a top level fighter about 6 years before Bernard rematched him.

I've never seen anyone give Bernard credit for that. It was a PPV flop that nobody wanted, including Naazim Richardson.

 

Roy Jones made a great career out of being blatantly robbed in the Olympics.
He used that as the excuse never to leave the country to fight & to duck his real challengers. Look at his record? Littered with Part time fighters Cops, Postmen & even a garbage collector. Sure he did beat Nard in a very close fight but avoided him like the plague till he needed the $$$$$$$$$
Nard came up the hard way had to fight for every thing he has. He owes a lot to his mentor Bouie Fisher who guided him through
If kids need a role model Bernard is the man Had a bad start turned his life around & is now an ATG & one of the top P4P fighters ever in the sport
Bernard Hopkins is THE MAN sorry but Roy & his steroid issues isn't even close

 

I suspect that Bernard was the underdog against Trinidad, because he was 36 and he hadn't had any top level wins at that point. Whereas Trinidad had beaten Joppy with ease, he was in his prime, he was exciting, and he was a huge name after fighting Oscar etc. I'm not saying that was justified, but that's how it was. It reminded me a little of Lacy being the favourite over Joe Calzaghe.

Roy fought Trinidad 6-7 years after Bernard did. Nobody said that Roy was picking on small fighters, because the fight wasn't relevant. Nobody cared. It was a 39 year old version of Roy, against a 172 pound Trinidad who hadn't fought for 3 years.

It's okay saying that Bernard didn't get the attention that Roy did, but again, he had a huge part to play in that.

 

This is my point. You flagrantly ignore the circumstances of the second fight.

 

I'm a Glen Johnson fan, but while Bernard may get satisfaction from beating a guy who beat Roy, again, I don't think it's that relevant. Glen was unbeaten, but he'd done nothing back then.

Nobody would have backed Glen to have beaten Roy, pre Ruiz.

 

You're talking absolute nonsense.

Avoided him like the plague?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/stories/2002-07-10-jones-hopkins.htm

 

Bhop's win against Trinidad is an amazing accomplishment all by itself. Trinidad was undefeated and many considered him at the time unbeatable. Bhop was given no chance. He was just supposed to be Trinidad's latest victim. Bhop beat him up and made him look foolish and knocked him out. Him made him look like an amateur fighter. Bhop ruined a legend.

 

No. Taylor and Pascal were the best names on Carl's resume.